Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
N.ANAND VENKATESH, J
M/s.Shrinithi Capital Private Ltd. – Appellant
Versus
Sivanammal – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. validity of the arbitration clause. (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. procedural handling of notice and service. (Para 3 , 4 , 5) |
| 3. appointment of arbitrator and resolution of disputes. (Para 6 , 7) |
ORDER
This petition has been filed under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 [for brevity 'the Act'] for appointment of an Arbitrator to decide the dispute and differences between the petitioner and the respondents in terms of the Loan-cum-Hypothecation Agreement dated 12.07.2021.
2. When this petition came up for hearing on 04.07.2025, this Court passed the following order:
“This petition has been filed under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 seeking for appointment of an Arbitrator, by this Court.
2. There seems to be a dispute between the petitioner and the respondents arising out of the Loan cum Hypothecation Agreement, dated 12.07.2021. There exists an arbitration clause in the Loan cum Hypothecation Agreement, dated 12.07.2021 and the same is extracted hereunder :-
28. ARBITRATION :
All disputes, differences and / or claims arising out of this Agreement whether during its subsistence or there after shall be settled by arbitration in accordance
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
